Sometimes I wonder about these women dressed in those shrouds-do they do this to provoke an attack? One can just imagine those fine "Asian youths" burning and smashing while their spokesmen demand even more concessions to protect their women in that neverending quest for some of that old time sharia.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 9, 2006 3:26 PM

It's not without irony. Straw was one of the most dhimmified persons in the British government before he got sacked. Now he is under full fire from those who he seemed to love.

Posted by: DrWolffenstein at October 9, 2006 3:28 PM

Muslims burn straw men in effigy. Let's hope for his sake ....

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at October 9, 2006 3:39 PM

Muslims are not a race. And they are slow to realize that.

Posted by: FreeSpeech at October 9, 2006 4:00 PM

Muslim women want the choice to wear want they want but don't want others to have the choice not to deal with their choice. It's all about them.

Posted by: Borg at October 9, 2006 4:27 PM

This Prescott guy is into full dhimmitude.

Posted by: StillFedUp at October 9, 2006 5:06 PM

FreeSpeech,

Muslims are not a race. And they are slow to realize that.

The Muslims know quite well they are not a race. In fact, they trumpet that fact to contrast with the West and Christianity as "white people's clubs" (ignoring the Arab racism in their own religion, of course). Their use of the term "racism" to deflect attacks is out of convenience, knowing that it would gain sympathy from those in the West inflicted by post-colonial guilt.

Posted by: ZionistYoungster at October 9, 2006 5:35 PM

This lie is easy to bust: "If a woman wants to wear a veil, why shouldn't she? It's her choice," Prescott told the BBC's Sunday AM program.

Let one wear a Klan outfit or dress in a Nazi SS outfit. Let see how far choice gets us then. I don't know about any of you but if I worked in a store, bank or anywhere else that could get robbed I would not serve anyone that covered their face.

I still think old muslim men want their 15 year old wives to cover their faces because we can’t tell how young they really are. It is illegal to have multiple wives but if you cover the face you can bring one at a time anywhere you want to go. You veil the faces and when you are all out on the town together you could point any female out and say, “she is my wife” the others are my children. The muslims are not just violent they are also cunning,

Posted by: Ronin at October 9, 2006 5:45 PM

Interesting story from France.

"77% of girls wearing the hijab do so because of the physical threats received from Islamist groups"

Read it all here.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11445

Posted by: Odyessus at October 9, 2006 6:41 PM

That Prescott is a real "Richard Cranium" (nudge nudge work that one out).

I always thought that Straw had come off sounding like a Dhimmi but obviously something has been eating at him within the last 12 months or so. Perhaps he felt sold out after 7/7 when his own constituents were more than likely that the terror in the tube occurred.

However, Prescott is so PC that he is in real trouble in the brain department. It is as if he checked his brain at the front door and forgot to put it back in again.

As a Catholic I was brought up with the nuns, and in those days they were in all habits. By the time I reached the last few years of school the nuns had moved away from the black habits and at my school they adopted a blue uniform that made them look more human ;-). At the primary level we used to tease at least one nun, calling her the big black boulder (behind her back but sometimes within earshot). What is different is that the nuns did not cover their faces, and they voluntarily wore the habit when they made the decision to join the convent. At the postulant level they were still free to leave whenever they wanted to leave. Even though some were quite cranky, they were still women who were in service to God (no matter what we think about individual nuns, this is the general rule).

On the other hand, the wearing of the veil in Islam is very intimidating. I was never intimidated by the nuns and their habits. I saw it as the nuns being set apart, but never felt that there was an issue of them being superior to myself (except that they were older women and I was a child). On the other hand, a woman in the veil is a different matter. If someone is hiding under the burqa or veil, how do you even know if it is a woman who is standing there? It could be a man pretending to be a woman in the burqa.

Jack Straw is right when he says that the wearing of the veil means that you cannot properly interact with the person. How can you communicate with someone if you cannot read their body language? This is why I think that Prescott earns the Richard Cranium of the Year award for one very stupid response to this question. Prescott comes across as one who is after the votes, and his comment is designed to get the votes. He is not standing up for anything by adopting the bleeding heart PC attitude.

The bleeding hearts need to be rounded up and sent on a trip to Pakistan or one of the other countries where the women are severely mistreated. They need a good dose of reality so that they can begin to wake up before it is too late.

Posted by: Maggie4Life at October 9, 2006 7:06 PM

While many British Muslim women who wear the veil are mere doormats of their husbands it has become obvious from thr latest spat that a number of them are extremely loud and assertive islamists. No doubt the mousey ones notice that, when they come into contact with non-Muslims, the latter find it an unsettling and disagreeable experience. Perhaps they regret this, but there is nothing they can do about it. The assertive ones, however, rejoice in the fact. Giving the kaffir an unsettling and disgreeable experience is what they like to do. Ask them to remove their veils? Hell, you'll be asking them to show respect for the kaffir next.

Posted by: wallyUK at October 9, 2006 7:07 PM

Covering the face should, for security reasons, be banned in non-Muslim countries. Infidels are entitled to take reasonable measures to ensure their own security, and a familiarity with Qur'an and Hadith would soon convince all but the very stupid or the programmatically pollyannish or the ideologically blinkered, that those who believe truly and deeply in Islam cannot conceivably wish non-Muslims well, must wish them ill.

Banning the niqab and similar face-coverings is a reasonable measure undertaken for security purposes. Should some object, that is unfortunate, but should have no effect on the decision, by Infidels in Infidel lands, to take what are, after all, the most minimal of measures.

Posted by: Hugh at October 9, 2006 10:51 PM

"Conservative Party spokesman Oliver Letwin"
-- from a posting above

His mother Shirley would not be amused. I believe the word is "wet."

Posted by: Hugh at October 9, 2006 11:58 PM

What about picture I.D.? Hasn't everyone wanted a twin to swap identites, play tricks on other people? Must be multitudes of fun when you get to wear a tent. Men, come join the fun too.

Posted by: mustang65 at October 10, 2006 2:52 PM

Hugh's comments are exactly right. The point of security cameras, for example, in many places is to see people's faces.

Would men in ski masks be served in a bank? Why should it be different for women? Isn't it a violation of federal, state and local law to have such a difference?

Posted by: Old Atlantic at October 10, 2006 3:19 PM

maggie, the nuns wear the veil, but I have yet to see a warmer smile than the one given by missionaries all over the world.

That veil (of the nuns) is NOT a barrier.

Muslim women are themselves a barrier.

Posted by: StillFedUp at October 10, 2006 3:21 PM

I am curious about an entry in Wikipedia that says that dhimmitude is no longer in existence. One correspondent said it was still in Bulgaria in the late 1800's.
Is it in fact part of any actualy legislative system? Does anyone still have to pay the tax.
Thanks.
Thebelfastman

Posted by: thebelfastman at October 15, 2006 5:13 PM